State Sen. Robert Myers renewed his calls for Congress to exempt Alaska from the Merchant Marine Act of 1920. He says it is an essential step toward avoiding what could be an energy crisis on the horizon.
The law, more commonly known as the Jones Act, stipulates that only American-made, -operated, -registered, and -flagged vessels may ship cargo from one US port to another, without first calling on a foreign port, such as Canada.
For much of the country, the Jones Act is not a top-of-mind issue. But it’s a different story for Alaska, and Myers wants Congress aware of the state’s peculiar predicament: although Alaska is rich in resources like liquid natural gas, it has struggled to exploit them.
The Jones Act is part of that equation.
“Alaska is facing an acute energy shortage,” Myers told a State Senate Transportation Committee. “The Alaska Department of Natural Resources has projected shortfalls in the Cook Inlet natural gas supply beginning in the very near future.”
The Railbelt grid provides electricity to more than 75% of the state’s population. Over 70% of that electricity is generated with natural gas, primarily from Cook Inlet. There are concerns that current production in the inlet could start to experience shortfalls by 2027.
Thankfully, Alaska is rich in liquid natural gas. Getting it to consumers is the hard part. The North Slope reserves, for example, are plentiful but far removed from population centers, and a proposed pipeline project has struggled to find financial backing. It would also take time to complete.
“As such, various utilities are now discussing liquefied natural gas imports to solve the crisis,” Myers said. “Alaska is in a unique quandary in which it prides itself on its oil and gas resources yet is unable to utilize its own natural gas from the North Slope gas fields.”
The simplest, most cost-effective solution would be to transport liquid natural gas from more remote parts of the state to Alaska’s population centers by sea. The problem is that there are no Jones-Act-compliant tankers capable of transporting the fossil fuel at scale, making it illegal for Alaska to ship its own gas to its residents.
Supporters of the Jones Act cite national security exigencies for preventing shipping between U.S. ports from being dominated by foreign vessels. The solution could be as easy as a congressional waiver.
It wouldn’t be the first time.
In 2006, a waiver was granted to tow a jack-up oil rig from the Gulf of America to Alaska for drilling in Cook Inlet. A similar waiver was granted in 2010 in support of oil exploration activities off the coast of Alaska and, then in 2011, when a Russian tanker was allowed to make an emergency fuel delivery to Nome.
Near the end of the hearing, Myers noted Puerto Rico has also begun receiving shipments of liquid natural gas on a French-made tanker purchased by Crowley, a US shipping firm. It is only able to do that due to a loophole in the Jones Act.
“This isn’t the first time…?”
DON YOUNG DID THIS FOR US.
Thinking Senator Stevens was the push and Young supported the effort.
Don Young was a BIG supporter of that act. It protects unions – not Alaska. I’ve asked him about that. Sen. Sullivan & (i hate Alaska Murkowski) both voted to keep it.
The Jones act needs to go away. Maybe Cong. Begich can help and get rid of it.
Yes Myers. Welcome to the show.
I welcome your solution to this.
Frankly relying upon our DC delegation is a fool’s errand.
Lisa and Dan could have done something about this when it was raised in 2022. Here it is 2025 and nada… perhaps Begich can introduce a useful bill that addresses this critical issue.
Alaska had an exemption when they purchased the “Wickersham” from Sweden (I may be wrong on the country). Too, were there to be an exemption, the ferry system could look to that avenue for a replacement vessel. There is no way in Heck the Columbia will make it to 2030 without major issues, same with the Kennicott. One or the other are out for maintenance during the rotation leaving no back up. So a exemption for Alaska holds more than just natural gas solving.
Cheers, Johnson
The Wickersham ran between Haines and Vancouver, BC. It was a beautiful vessel.
It was beautiful, indeed. But I think you mean Prince Rupert, although it may have occasionally gone to Vancouver. – sd
Thankyou. No, it was Prince Rupert
PS, I want to add, the ferry “Wizards of Smart” have decided to run the Columbia beyond the recommended and expensive, shafts and variable pitch propellers replacement. That alone will tell you the potential for
a long term replacement time in a probably far distant ship yard.
Johnson
The Jones act was put into law to allow businesses in Seattle and Portland to take advantage of Alaska. It has hurt businesses in Alaska since its inception. When I was in business I shipped products from Asia to Seattle for $5000.00 per container but it cost $20,000.00 to get the container from Seattle to Anchorage. Alaska should demand the end to the Jones Act.
Many nations have cabotage laws that promote national interests.
The Jones Act keeps rudimentary US merchant marine available and certain vessels available for use by America’s armed forces if necessary.
There’s more at stake than obtaining cheap sneakers made in communist China when it comes to marine transport.
The Jones Act was created to protect American industry.
Shipyards, manufacturing, maritime…..
Keeping these industries healthy is a matter of national security, as well as keeping American jobs.
I’m big fan of building ice class tsnkers to haul north slope gas to market. A whole lot cheaper than a pipeline. And again good for American security and jobs.
Crowley has been hauling gas to Puerto Rico for some time via Tug and Barge. All built in America
Ive been corrected, Prince Rupert, not Vancouver.
Pedro, please tell us, how would a ship carry North Slope gas to Cook Inlet?
I find it interesting that we went from running out of gas by 2026 to running out by 2027. Not sure how that happened. This is one topic I try to keep up on.
The effort to sink the Jones Act has been around for over 50 years. Don Young made some efforts through congressional legislation in the 1970’s. There were bumper stickers supporting his efforts. Nothing happened. The reason was because congressional members in states like Louisiana and other other ship building states opposed it. It kept union member ship builders employed in the US. Foreign built vessels, like the Wickersham, would cut into the US ship building trade. The Jones Act was a deliberate barrier to the purchase of foreign built vessels operating in US waters. The Columbia was US built and operates between Bellingham and Haines once a week. A superb vessel and the flagship of the Blue Canoe Fleet.
Agree and with a fleet the size of Alaska, it is a flagship continuing till it isn’t running then what?? It is aged out by normal ship life standards, though I agree, it appears in good shape yet as I stated above, the need to re-shaft and replace the variable pitch wheels will cost a ton and are due or even overdue. The cost involved with that project is extensive and with the Kennicott out of service for, in effect, a year, to believe the Columbia will make this stretch without major breakdown(s) is missing reality.
Don’t misunderstand, I am a admirer of the Columbia, suggesting a couple of times, that the replacement be of the same design, using the build blueprints ungraded to accommodate that goal. You know the rest, spent millions on a whole new concept so some soul can attest their name to it. Construction time would possibly be reduced with “Plan Ready” from this vessel to it’s replacement.
Make it SOLAS at the same time.
Good talking to you Lady- Cheers, Johnson-Ketchikan
The original three blue canoes were the Malaspina, Matanuska, and Taku. All named after glaciers. Built in 1961-62 and went into service in 1963. The fleet pride of the new 49th state. Most went well beyond their service life. The original flagship, the Malaspina, was sold by the state to John Binkley. He keeps it in Ketchikan as a supply and hotel vessel for his many holdings. Ryan Anderson, the current state DOT Commissioner sold it to Binkley for $200K, on a no bid sale. Anderson and Binkley are
both members of the Alaska Railroad Board.
Bush gave the Jones Act waiver to Escopeta (the future Furie), for the jack up, then the logistics began, to use a semisubmersible ship for the transport. Then only to have Obama cancel the waiver, putting the whole thing at risk. Escopeta was then held hostage by a tug and barge company who politicked for the cancellation, so Escopeta would have to retrofit one of its barges for millions of dollars to get it through Drake’s passage, yet couldn’t be insured, even by Lloyd’s of London.
Facing missing the season, Escopeta decided to chance using the semisubmersible anyway. It got its ass handed to it going through the passage, and the rig had to have repairs done in SA before continuing. But it wasn’t lost at sea like if the barge plan had been used. Then it stopped in Canada, terminated the foreign vessel voyage, put the rig legs down on the sea floor, so the winter modifications could be made before reaching Alaska. That was a 30-day retrofit in Canada and the foreign vessel used ended. Then another American tug & barge company was hired to tow the jack-up to Cook Inlet from Canada (jackups are a barge of sorts…) Yet Escopeta was fined millions by Obama for violating the Jones Act, because it found a way around the extortion that was being done in Galveston. That fine haunted the company for years, and eventually lost in court.
So yeah , the Jones Act is a sham, and a crony-driven political tool, that screws Alaska at every turn. Kill it. Once and for all.